The three-day whirlwind trip of top BJP leaders, B.L. Santosh and Sambit Patra, to Imphal promised to clear the decks on the future of Manipur’s politics. Their departure without any definitive signal on the formation of a government has given rise to more uncertainty. Speculation continues to swirl, yet the possibility of restoring an elected government in the immediate future appears distant. For many in Manipur, the central question remains unresolved: whether the return of the BJP, the rise of another party, or simply a continuation of President’s Rule would truly serve the state’s interests.
The political experience in Manipur over the decades has taught people a difficult truth—that change of guard only changes the party in power, and nothing else. Governance failures, ethnic tensions, corruption, and unaddressed grievances have persisted regardless of which political flag flies over the Secretariat. In this context, the expected visit of RSS Chief Dr. Mohan Bhagwat has drawn attention. His arrival at such a sensitive juncture suggests that the national leadership may be undertaking a deeper assessment of the situation beyond what routine political exercises allow.
The fundamental question today is whether the Centre intends to restore a popular government or extend President’s Rule. The crisis Manipur is facing is complex and deeply rooted; it cannot be resolved by changing faces in government alone. Many people believe that elements masquerading as BJP supporters contributed to the unrest and disorder of recent months. Such internal contradictions within political structures make governance unstable and erode public trust. What the state needs today is not just a government, but clarity, justice, and accountability.
President’s Rule provides administrative continuity, but it cannot replace the legitimacy of an elected government indefinitely. At the same time, restoration of a government without addressing the core causes of instability first would be wholly counterproductive. This is why ground-level assessment is essential. The understanding of the lived realities of the displaced, the grievances of communities, the failures in law-and-order mechanisms, and the role of vested interests is crucial. National organisations that have traditionally been strong advocates of unity and nationalism are now duty-bound to identify the “black sheep” working against the integrity of the nation from within political ranks.
The metaphor of separating salt from water is apt. In the recent crisis in Manipur, the line separating the public representatives from private interests has become blurred. Many leaders have long been enmeshed with business networks, patronage systems, and private gains. As the public would say, what Manipur needs is leadership unsullied by these influences-people who work for public welfare, not personal gain. If a new government is to be formed under the BJP, it must be built on clean foundations, selecting candidates who truly stand for service and justice.
Restoring trust is the first step toward restoring governance. People want justice for victims, accountability for wrongs, swift rehabilitation of the displaced, and an honest roadmap for peace. Until justice is delivered and confidence restored, the distinction between an elected government and President’s Rule holds little practical meaning for the common citizen.
At this point, the scheduled visit by the chief of the RSS might bring a moral and organisational clarity that has eluded the political discussions so far. It is an indicator that the national leadership recognises the gravity of the situation. Manipur is at a crossroads now. The Centre needs to intervene with pragmatism, sincerity, and uncompromising commitment to justice-either through a new popular government or a continuing interim arrangement-what the people look for is not political rhetoric but concrete measures that heal the state, restore faith, and see to it that such a crisis never recurs.
Manipur deserves stability and dignity. As for how the onward path will unfold, it depends less on which party has come to power but on whether those in office have come to power because of a prime quality of integrity and dedication to the people.